Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 8.
Published in final edited form as: Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Jun;17(3):331–357. doi: 10.1007/s40258-018-00456-1

Table 3.

Diagnostic accuracy and prevalence rates

Economic evaluation Sensitivity
 Specificity
 Source Hearing loss prevalence
OAEs ABRs Others OAEs ABRs Others
Prager et al. (1987) [21] – 100% COG: 75% – 86% COG: 71% Single study 0.2%
Brown (1992) [22] – – 8–9 months: Conventional/alternative: 60%
10 months: Conventional/alternative: 60%		 – – 8–9 months: Conventional/alternative: 97%
10 months: Conventional/alternative: 95%		 Single study NR
White et al. (1995) [23] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.595%
Friedland et al. (1996) [24] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.15–0.6%
Kemper et al. (2000) [25] 80% 98% Targeted screening: 59% 92 96% Targeted screening: 95% Single study 0.11%
Kezirian et al. (2001) [26] 95% 95% OAE then S-ABR: 90.25%** 90% 95% OAE then S-ABR: 95% Single study 0.35%
Boshuizen et al. (2001) [27] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Vohr et al. (2001) [28] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.2%
Keren et al. (2002) [29] 95% 95% – 85% 90% – Single study HR: 0.83%
LR: 0.6%
Herrero and Monero-Ternero (2002) [30] NR NR UNHS: 78.4–90.25%
TNHS: 46.3–53.2%		 NR NR UNHS: 95–99.6%
TNHS: 99.8–99.9%		 Single study Two rates considered for analysis: 0.11% and 0.35%
Hessel et al. (2003) [31] – – S-TEOAE/S-ABR: 96% – – S-TEOAE/S-ABR: 89% Single study 0.15%
Lin et al. (2005) [32] NR NR Diagnostic ABR: NR NR NR NR Bilateral (TEOAE): 0.22%;
Unilateral (TEOAE): 0.23%
Bilateral (TEOAE + AABR): 0.1%
Unilateral (TEOAE + AABR): 0.2%
Grill et al. (2006) [33] 96% – – 99% – – Single study 0.15%
Uus et al. (2006) [34] – – Screening at birth > 90% – – Screening at 8 months of age 95% Single study NR
Schnell-Inderst et al. (2006) [35] NR NR Range reported for: Echoscreen/S-TOAE, GSI60/D-DPOAE, Blitzbera/AABR, Eroscan/S-DPOAE modus, S-TOAE modus: 99.4–100% NR NR Range reported for: Echoscreen/S-TOAE, GSI60/D-DPOAE, Blitzbera/AABR: 82.4–92.3% Multiple studies 0.15%
Schopflocher et al. (2007) [36] 80% 98% Targeted screening: 59% 92 96% Targeted screening: 95% Single study 0.11%
Merlin et al. (2007) [37] 100% 80% – 92% 96% – Single study Bilateral: 0.13%ɸ
Unilateral: 0.06%ɸ
Lin et al. (2007) [38] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.51%
Porter et al. (2009) [39] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.2%
Olusanya et al. (2009) [40] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.6%
Uilenburg et al. (2009) [41] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Burke et al. (2012)1 [42] 95% 95% – 85% 90% – Single study Overallψ: UK: 0.15%, India: 0.496
Burke et al. (2012)2 [42] 95% 95% – 85% 90% – Single study Overallψ: UK: 0.15%, India: 0.496
Huang et al. (2012) [43] 95% – – 95% – – Single study Overall: 0.30%
HR: 3%
Tobe et al. (2013) [44] 90% – OAE + AABR: 95% 85% OAE + AABR: 95% Single study 0.2%
Fortnum et al. (2016) [45] – – PTS: 95.9% HC: 88.7% – – PTS: 79.8% HC: 83.8% Single study 0.46%
Chiou et al. (2017) [46] 80% 98% – 84% 96% – Single study 0.13%
Chen et al. (2017) [47] NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1.66%
Heidari et al. (2017) [48] 77% 93% – 93% 97% – Meta-analysis 0.5%
Rivera et al. (2017) [49] 86% – – 97.3% – – Single study 0.138%

AABR Automated Auditory Brainstem Response, COG Crib-O-Gram, DPOAE Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions testing, GSI Grason-Stadler Incorporated, HC HearCheck, HR high risk, LR low risk, NR not reported, OAE Automated Otoacoustic Emissions, PTS pure tone screening, QCM quality-weighted detected child months, S-ABR Stacked Auditory Brainstem Response, TEOAE Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions, TOAE Transient Otoacoustic Emissions, TNHS Targeted Newborn Hearing Screening, UNHS Universal Newborn Screening

ψ

HR: UK—0.800%, India—0.796%; LR: UK—0.08%, India—0.463%

*

Exact source not found. The citation that closely resembles the value is the study by Mason et al., who reported the sensitivity of 90% (95% CI: 78–96)

**

Calculated by multiplying the specificities for OAE and S-ABR (95% × 95% = 90.25%)

ɸ

Median

1

Universal vs. Targeted

2

1-stage vs. 2-stages